The Supreme Court has allowed Patrick O’Connor’s appeal against a High Court order granting judgment for €76,761.76 to the solicitors trading as Timothy J. Hegarty & Son. It directed a full hearing on two issues: whether an alleged conflict of interest could invalidate a fees settlement, and whether €75,000 was payable only from the proceeds of a property sale.
The appeal concerned a claim for professional fees. The firms’ original claim was €107,394.21, later compromised at €95,000. Under a letter signed by Mr O’Connor on 1 November 2010, he undertook to pay €20,000 and agreed that €75,000 would be paid from the proceeds of sale of 42 Alden Grove. The solicitors handling that sale separately undertook to pay the €75,000 from its proceeds. Mr O’Connor paid the initial €20,000 late; the judgment said that delay did not matter to the appeal.
The High Court had granted judgment on the unpaid balance, plus interest. The Supreme Court considered whether Mr O’Connor’s affidavits raised arguable defences requiring a plenary hearing, rather than deciding the merits of those defences.
On conflict of interest, Mr O’Connor argued that the settlement was invalid because it also settled “all issues of every nature” he had concerning work done by solicitor Michael O’Connell. The Supreme Court said the agreement itself gave this argument a prima facie evidential basis: the firms could benefit if claims against Mr O’Connell were abandoned. It made no final finding on whether a conflict existed or whether the agreement was unenforceable, and said evidence and legal submissions should be heard at a full hearing.
The court also found it arguable that the €75,000 was due only from the sale proceeds. The property had not been sold before the proceedings began. The court did not decide what the agreement meant or whether Mr O’Connor had made genuine efforts to find a purchaser; it said those questions could be addressed at the plenary hearing.
The appeal was allowed, with only those two issues to be pleaded as defences. The court rejected the proposed negligence set-off in this case, noting that separate negligence proceedings had already been instituted and that the present claim was based on the settlement agreement. It also upheld the refusal to join James Riordan & Partners, saying any negligence claim against that firm should be brought separately.